Representative Experience Archive
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against our client, a motor carrier, for an alleged motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff waited almost two years to serve the defendant with a copy of the lawsuit. Amundsen Davis filed a motion to dismiss based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 103(b) which requires plaintiffs to exercise reasonable diligence to obtain service on a defendant.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging that agents of our client installed certain equipment in her vehicle resulting in the vehicle malfunctioning and requiring a new transmission. After the plaintiff presented her case in chief, Amundsen Davis moved for a directed verdict pointing out that the plaintiff’s evidence failed to show that the defendants actions were the cause of her damages.
The plaintiff filed a breach of contract action against a small motor carrier for claims arising out of the alleged sale of the business. Amundsen Davis filed a motion to dismiss based on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 103(b) which requires the plaintiffs to exercise reasonable diligence to obtain service on a defendant.
Amundsen Davis secured summary judgment in favor of our clients, as the court found that the parents owed no duty to control the actions of their teenage son.
Amundsen Davis represents a global facilities service provider where plaintiffs often engage in forum shopping and attempt to file lawsuits in the favorable venue of Cook County. We have been successful, in multiple cases, in transferring these cases to venues where they belong (where the injury occurred or where the plaintiff resides), drastically reducing the exposure value and enabling settlements favorable to the client.
The arbitrator dismissed all of claimant’s claims with prejudice noting that the evidence did not prove that our client, a major Wisconsin contractor, caused the damages.
Our firm successfully defeated class certification in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action by successfully arguing that Plaintiff had not met the burdens under Rule 23.
Matt McClean defended a client through a 6-week jury trial in a case involving a serious construction accident.
Matt McClean represented family trusts involved in a series of estate and commercial claims when the death of a principal coincided with the sale of the family business.
In multi-million dollar dispute with a municipality, Matt McClean helped a construction company negotiate a resolution.